John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #61
I would think 4 smaller turbofans might be better than 2 large ones which I would think would be more vulnerable to FOD.
I did read a USAF article some time ago that was written after dirt runway trials with the C 17 in which the conclusion was that there was no greater danger of F.O.D. ingestion than a C130 as long as the reversers where turned off below 30 knt.s We must keep in mind that propellers also stir up a lot of debris. Sorry I cannot provide a link as it was just some casual reading I was doing.I would think 4 smaller turbofans might be better than 2 large ones which I would think would be more vulnerable to FOD.
Why? Embraer, KHI, and Antonov, don't think so, plus you can also have FOD damage with turboprops where the prop blades are hit and damaged. A damaged prop blade creates all sorts of problems.I would think 4 smaller turbofans might be better than 2 large ones which I would think would be more vulnerable to FOD.
You might want to check a few things first. Boeing gave customers the option of selecting either GE, P&W, or Rolls-Royce engines when the B777-200 was launched. Also, the B787 is configured so that the aircraft can be fitted with either GE or Rolls-Royce engines, and that a B787 can be re-engined (within 24 hrs per Boeing) with either GE or Rolls-Royce engines so that a GE-powered B787 could be switched and become a Rolls-Royce powered B787.Europe selecting a euro engine is "blatant protectionism" - ah-ha
USA would never indulge in such things.
Look at all the US aircraft manufacturers lining up to put Euro engines on their aircraft - oh so funny
MB
Not an aerospace engineer, but I do believe that switching an aircraft design from props to fans would trigger a major design and re-certification effort. A change in engines generally could change the weight and trim of an aircraft, as well as the amount of power or thrust available in flight and fuel consumption. A change in engine type could also change the amount of drag an aircraft experiences. Just consider all the potential issues that one would encounter re-engining an automobile with a petrol/gasoline engine with a diesel engine with the same amount of power...I don't think that the conversion to turbofan would necessitate a major redesign at all. The wing sweep and design appears about right and they would only need to fit two turbofans.
Why would you lose rough strip capability with turbofans? The C-17 has rough strip capability, as do the KHI C-2 and KC-390. The only differences between a turboprop and a turbofan in this area are that a turbofan has higher potential for FOD due to ingestion of FOD from strip, however that can be mitigated, and turbofans accelerate slower than turboprops at the start. Otherwise there are no real reasons why a turbofan variant couldn't be viable across all capabilities that the current variant is advertised as having / will have.
Have the C-2 and KC-390 demonstrated that capability yet? Any aircraft can claim to have a generic 'rough strip' capability, the devil lies in what grade of FOD causes an actual risk to the aircraft. C-17 taking off from a dirt airstrip doesn't instantly make it not susceptible to FOD in other instances, from memory that testing was done on a dirt runway which had been wetted to represent rainfall.Why would you lose rough strip capability with turbofans? The C-17 has rough strip capability, as do the KHI C-2 and KC-390. The only differences between a turboprop and a turbofan in this area are that a turbofan has higher potential for FOD due to ingestion of FOD from strip, however that can be mitigated, and turbofans accelerate slower than turboprops at the start. Otherwise there are no real reasons why a turbofan variant couldn't be viable across all capabilities that the current variant is advertised as having / will have.
As far as I understand the KC-390 has as part of it's certification and I think the C-2 has. @MrConservative maybe able to clarify that point.Have the C-2 and KC-390 demonstrated that capability yet?
Cool, must've missed it! Caught the C-2 at RIAT last year and that it was a beautiful looking bird. Shame about the sky on departure day!As far as I understand the KC-390 has as part of it's certification and I think the C-2 has. @MrConservative maybe able to clarify that point.
Oh yes it is a beautiful bird. Saw it when it was here and a cloudy day makes for good photography so I was told by a photographer. Same aircraft too.Cool, must've missed it! Caught the C-2 at RIAT last year and that it was a beautiful looking bird. Shame about the sky on departure day!
It would really depend on the diameter of the turbofans for a twin configuration. As 4 prop jobs are being replaced by 2 turbofans the diameter is likely going to result in a much shorter ground clearance hence a greater threat of FOD. In any event, if the prop engines aren’t sorted within the next year, are operators going to walk away or demand turbofans? Let’s face it, the vendor has had years to address this problem and the only result seems to be “we have a solution and it will fitted soon”. Operators are understandably not impressed.Why? Embraer, KHI, and Antonov, don't think so, plus you can also have FOD damage with turboprops where the prop blades are hit and damaged. A damaged prop blade creates all sorts of problems.
The KC-390 has had a testing programme on unprepared field capability and the C-2 has had a testing programme on ice surface capability.As far as I understand the KC-390 has as part of it's certification and I think the C-2 has. @MrConservative maybe able to clarify that point.
Just for the "dirt strip" certification they'd need a minimum of 2-3 years - that's how long it took the first time, with Airbus renting civilian airfields of various kinds for it between 2013 and 2016 (at least: gras, sand, earth and gravel).Not an aerospace engineer, but I do believe that switching an aircraft design from props to fans would trigger a major design and re-certification effort
That was the plan but a Rolls engined 787 cannot be repowered with GE engines, the intention was to use a common mounting it this didn’t happen, otherwise all those RR engined 787 parked up would have GE engines now.You might want to check a few things first. Boeing gave customers the option of selecting either GE, P&W, or Rolls-Royce engines when the B777-200 was launched. Also, the B787 is configured so that the aircraft can be fitted with either GE or Rolls-Royce engines, and that a B787 can be re-engined (within 24 hrs per Boeing) with either GE or Rolls-Royce engines so that a GE-powered B787 could be switched and become a Rolls-Royce powered B787.
And who had an turboprop engine big enough for the job, Pratt didn’t if that who you are thinking of.Redesign of the wing and recertifications would be significant so which is easier, that together with turbofans or a total redesign of the current turboprop system? Lots of wing and turbofan expertise in Europe but turboprop, not so much it seems.
Thanks for the A400M update. Not sure if this is related to the European Aviation Safety Agency certification for a "Pack 2" series of modifications to the TP400-D6 engine's Avio Aero-supplied permanent propeller gearbox.Germany has refused delivery on two A400Ms. Whether rejection is right or wrong, it must give the French pause wrt German participation in the FCAS program. German export restrictions are problematic as well.
Germany refuses delivery of two A400M transport aircraft
I continue to scratch my head over the inability of Europrop International GmbH (a JV of four main European aircraft engine manufacturers), to get its act together. In UK Parliament in July, Mark Francois, a former Defence Minister, said: “We have paid £2.6 billion for an aircraft with appalling reliability, bad engines, a virtually broken gearbox, problem propellers, massive vibration problems...”No real news of any A400m purchase for Indonesia thus far, with NZDF choosing the C-130J.
I am still a big fan of the A400m due to its unique features (despite its reported problems).
Let’s see if Spain can swap four to six A-400Ms with Korea in return for 30 KT-1 and 20 T-50 trainers. Spain ordered 27 A-400M from Airbus but has decided to sell 13 of them and received consent from Airbus. There is a good chance that Korea will eventually becomes a A400m user, if the deal with Spain is struck.